I may not understand the brilliance of this film yet, but I have already given a thought of a rewatch, idk for me it just didn't click

I may not understand the brilliance of this film yet, but I have already given a thought of a rewatch, idk for me it just didn't click

I respect welles is my best actor/director of all time, but this film he's truly miserable fat man as look.

I respect welles is my best actor/director of all time, but this film he's truly miserable fat man as look.

While Kane is cinema at its most innovative, Chimes at Midnight marks the threshold between theatre and film, balancing the two on each end and bringing out the best of both worlds. A masterpiece, Shakespeare and Welles, a fascinating duo of filmic and theatrical brilliance. Maybe I should’ve looked into the original texts that Welles adapted here, but as it is a blend that centers around the character of ‘comedic relief’ in Falstaff in multiple plays, it is a film made of its own genius.

While Kane is cinema at its most innovative, Chimes at Midnight marks the threshold between theatre and film, balancing the two on each end and bringing out the best of both worlds. A masterpiece, Shakespeare and Welles, a fascinating duo of filmic and theatrical brilliance. Maybe I should’ve looked into the original texts that Welles adapted here, but as it is a blend that centers around the character of ‘comedic relief’ in Falstaff in multiple plays, it is a film made of its own genius.

Hot take Welles and Shakespeare are both very talented in their craft. 

Now I want to talk about the ending, as all must do in their lifetime. 
I see Falstaff as such a tragic character, but also as reflective of Henry V. Both of these men desire respect, both feel that it is owed and coming to them, both use the other to try and gain something. While they both clearly enjoy each other’s company, it was clear to me that the relationship was rooted in transaction. Falstaff wanted the power from the king, and so he made himself the fool. He was willing to play knight, poet, and friend to a twat hoping he’d get something in return. Henry V looked at Falstaff as his escape from responsibility. Using him to ignore all troubles till the battle, and even after using him to ignore all troubles till his father’s death. 
Henry V was always going to turn his back on Falstaff, and he was right to do so. His people would not respect a king who conversed with the town drunk. But just because he was right to do so, does not mean he wasn’t putting his friend to death.

Hot take Welles and Shakespeare are both very talented in their craft. 

Now I want to talk about the ending, as all must do in their lifetime. 
I see Falstaff as such a tragic character, but also as reflective of Henry V. Both of these men desire respect, both feel that it is owed and coming to them, both use the other to try and gain something. While they both clearly enjoy each other’s company, it was clear to me that the relationship was rooted in transaction. Falstaff wanted the power from the king, and so he made himself the fool. He was willing to play knight, poet, and friend to a twat hoping he’d get something in return. Henry V looked at Falstaff as his escape from responsibility. Using him to ignore all troubles till the battle, and even after using him to ignore all troubles till his father’s death. 
Henry V was always going to turn his back on Falstaff, and he was right to do so. His people would not respect a king who conversed with the town drunk. But just because he was right to do so, does not mean he wasn’t putting his friend to death.

with mine own rating i simultaneously agnize the achievement and splend'r of this filmeth 'longside mine own stupidity in und'rstanding it

with mine own rating i simultaneously agnize the achievement and splend'r of this filmeth 'longside mine own stupidity in und'rstanding it